Sardakowski v. Clements et al

Filing 40

MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Motion to Hold in Abeyance Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court shall hold in abeyance the Motion to Dismiss 17 through and including October 25, 2012, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 09/24/12. (alvsl)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-01326-RBJ-KLM JAMES SARDAKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. TOM CLEMENTS, in his individual capacity, TRAVIS TRANI, in his individual capacity, and KAVIN SNYDER, in his individual capacity, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s opposed Motion to Hold in Abeyance Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) [Docket No. 38; Filed September 20, 2012] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff initiated this case pro se on May 21, 2012. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [#17] on July 9, 2012, which was subsequently referred to the undersigned [#18]. The Court issued a Minute Order [#19] requiring Plaintiff and Defendants to file a Response and a Reply, respectively, addressing only the exhaustion-of-administrativeremedies argument. Plaintiff filed a Response on July 23, 2012 [#24], and Defendants filed a Reply on August 8, 2012 [#30]. On September 7, 2012, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff [#32]. Because Plaintiff is now represented, and because Plaintiff plans on filing an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to temporarily hold in abeyance the pending Motion to Dismiss [#17]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#38] is GRANTED. The Court shall hold in abeyance the Motion to Dismiss [#17] through and including October 25, 2012. Dated: September 24, 2012

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?